RE: NDAs and the ME12 Jun 2024 14:38
Hi MM,
Since you ask...
(1) I've been (occasionally, when it seems material) 'marking your homework ' since at least 2017 (culminating in the Haldor Topsoe fertiliser project, which you enthused about long after I pointed out that Danish export credit was 'off cover' and the project was a non-starter ?).
You went off in a huff to set up a (curated = managed) twitter account, that would only post positive news :
.."Good morning All Great response for the new group. Twitter is only fitfully allowing new 'adds', for no obvious reason. We are at 39 now, and I am going to cap at 50 to ensure some manageability! Rest assured all info will be tweeted out to boost the ZIOC investment case."
.."I will try and ensure that the group retains the most active researchers and, as such, I expect there will be some 'toing and froing'of members over the next few weeks..."
Or this, from 2019 : .."News filters from the Congo Forum that #ZIOC/Jumelles heavily engaged with CRBC (the huge Chinese infrastructure co.) over design enhancements to and acceleration of the iron ore wharves at Pointe Noire. Trestles, auto-loading and capacity increase to 40Mtpa from the get go..."
Neither has aged well, wouldn't you accept ? You re-appeared here - with your 'own' board (as you see it)...and have posted some good stuff , as I freely acknowledge. But it seems you can't resist over-egging the pudding ;-<
(2) As to contributions,, I'd cite PSEI/Ausenco; PP-FCC (Asperbras/Lula electoral finance/Nguesso link/Little Den/SNPC corruption); Ollivier (Brazzaville Foundation/end of apartheid/ Russian support for Big Den/Rosatom hydropower), to name but three. The cases against Sapro Mayoko, Mbalam Nabeba, etc....
(3) I've contacted the co frequently, without result, which suggests they're not willing to engage at present (at least not with me, unlike previously). Hence my piqued interest in your inference that you'd been given the 'NDA' argument by them. ..Which you STILL haven't answered, btw, Yes or No ?...especially as it would be inconsistent with - and represent a radical change since - your earlier suggestion that ZIOC was amenable to some kind of presentation. Or was that also wishful thinking ?
(4) I'm not 'demanding at will' , I'm asking for you to share the source of your claim ie a new angle (maybe) on the maneouvrings. Trust is good, checking is better, I've found. I have my own flightradar subscription, thanks, and have used it to sort out the facts re PP-FCC, whose movements I subsequently report to the board(s).
(5) I've found that bluster and invective are usually a good 'tell'.
I'll leave it at that.
All the best ...and good luck to us all.
Sincerely.